Talk:François Roche/Archive 1

Deletion of article
The article is basically a résumé for an architect whose notoriety is problematically low for being granted by an encyclopedic article, and whose interventions on the wiki has shown little respect for the collective process of elaboration, and use of personnal intervention. After long discussions, the french-speaking wikipedia has decided to suppress the page. Why not considering it for the english one? As the quality seems to be as low as the french was. Discussion for page suppression in french --Thomas1020 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The French Wikipedia is independent of the English Wikipedia and as a result the standards for article inclusion are likely to vary, so deletion of an article on one project does not mean its equivalent should be deleted here. However, if there are good reasons for deleting this page then please feel free to take it to Articles for deletion. Please ask if you need any help nominating. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They is a large debat in France about this architect on Wikipedia, because he appear typically as a person "who is not prophet in his own country" but very well know in others. For example he is the only french to have been selected in the international pavilion at the next Biennale of Venice (he did it 7 times as a Guiness Record !). That creats a lot of Jalousy in France.
 * The people who want to erase him in France are the same who try here to ask suppresion in Wiki US (mister Thomas1020 and Nakor and two others as a group of lobyying).
 * They are using Wiki as a chapel war to protect their own taste and cultural vision. It is a shame.
 * The french decide 3 month ago to autorise the article about him (http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia%3ADemande_de_restauration_de_page&action=historysubmit&diff=52006773&oldid=52006144#Fran.C3.A7ois_Roche_.28architecte.29) but the same persons are now coming back to try to ask again its suppression. --Noname555 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that fr.wikipedia is not France Wikipedia but French-speaking Wikipedia with contributors from many countries including countries which does not have French as their official language. Also the authorization you're mentioning is only the fact of one contributor. The final decision belongs to the whole French-speaking community. Anyways those debates belongs to fr.wikipedia as en.wikipedia have their own community which may take a different decision about this. Nakor (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * they is a large conflict of interrest between this architect and Nakor and Thomas2010. They only reason for them is not to supress the page but to suppress this kind of architecte. I asked their revocation of administrator argued by the lack of serenity in their attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.86.207 (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest of what kind? I'm pointing the fact that the article is problematic in two ways: the style is laudatory and at least not neutral, and the article is mostly sourced by the own websites of François Roche. I don't know is there is enough material to write an acceptable, even shorter, article. It's possible, I don't have a clue, and it would far out of my competence to write it. But as the problems are the same in the french-speaking and the english-speaking wikis, I thought I should let know the english contributors of what's going on in the french one. Information is never a bad thing, is it? As the article should be written again from draft in both, it's even more valid. --Thomas1020 (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * french are becoming so conservative and reactionnary that they cannot support open mind, open attitude. It s a shame to see somebody trying to suppress article with wrong arguments. Who pay him ? To who profit the crime...in french Zone Wiki is sometime driven by very strange attitude of conservatism... the fear of the futur perhabs...look at our Soccer team... that is the same (from french who try to survive in this gluing period) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.86.207 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm giving up here. What has soccer to do with that? And who says I'm french? --Thomas1020 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing here. This debate is going nowhere. And BTW if the IP digs a little bit in my contribution, they will find out that I do not really live in France. Nakor (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The way Nakor and Thomas argued in french means that they are french (or very very good translator). But more the way they used the game of good cop bad cop to eliminate the portrait of Francois Roche is ashamed. Such attitude of Lobbying to disqualify has to be highly denounced. That is not and cannot be a Wikipedia attitude. Cultural apparatuses have to be use for opening mind not for national ghetoism. The portrait of F Roche is informational. It has been modified and improve with many contibutors (look at history). The "cabal" from french to french is ridiculous. We have to let this architect in Wiki zone, he contributed a lot to the actual debate. He has a right place, no more no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.212.164 (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously suggest you read French language. France is not the center of the world. There are other countries (or subdivision of countries) which have French as an official or de facto language. For the rest your time would be much well spent addressing the concern that have been raised both on the French and English article than in attacking contributors in different places. Nakor (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude seems deply unproductive or counterproductive. For the last time ,please, could you argue about your request. It not clear, and you just seems too closed to your subject...and by this way corrupted by the hate you developped. Are you sure to contribute to Wiki or to use Wiki promote yourself ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.220.197 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am sure of the opposite unlike you. And plese stop your personnal attacks once and for all. Nakor (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As for my request, the artcile as very poor grammar and sound like somebody went to translate.google.com to produce it from the article in French. Two examples just from the first paragraph: "He makes his studies" and "he left in medium of course to be registered at the school of architecture". But your only goal here seems to conduct personal attacks on the people that try to help you by pointing out why the article needs improvements to be kept either on French or English Wikipedia. For the last time, please work on the content of the article instead. Nakor (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nakor / could you correct the grammar at the place to complain and disqualify. The wiki is a collective work. You don t have you place here. Your attitude is chilly. Please take your responsability to modify the text in the english version if you thinks that needs to be done. Look at the number of contributor who did this portrait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname555 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You get it this is a collaborative wiki with some rules, one of them being Civility. I helped you by undeleting the article on fr.wiki, you insulted me there and here and now you expect me to help you again? Nakor (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * malkovich is talking to malkovich. The recognition of who is talking is not so reliable. Between the one who use an ID to be another and the one who hide himself behind a fake ID... where is the truth. It seems to be ridiculous to run after the confusion they voluntary created. What should be the best is to declare this portrait admissible or un-admissible, or have to be amended and corrected...When the french try to be in the head of Malkovich, they just shoot their foot, loosing their position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.61.87 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality problems with the main contributors
This article was created and mainly written by Noname555, who has been proven to be, by IP check in the french-speaking wikipedia, an avatar of POLICE999999, who declared to Marasmusine in May: "I know what I m talking about /// i m francois Roche". There is then a huge issue with an article probably created and written in large parts by the personnality who is the topic of the article. This is against the basic ethics and rules of Wikipedia. Noname555 is also the creator and main contributor of the french-speaking article. This could explain the problems of grammar, a word by word translation from french, the bad sourcing, and the neutrality problems. I'm not aware of the practices of the english-speaking wiki in that case and I'll let more qualified contributors take an initiative if they believe it has to be. The information had to be shared though.

Sources:
 * IP check establishing that Noname555 and POLICE999999 are one single contributor. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:V%C3%A9rificateur_d'adresses_IP/Requ%C3%AAtes/juillet_2010#Demande_concernant_:_Noname555.2C_POLICE999999_-_8_juillet
 * Discussion where POLICE999999 admits being François Roche. User_talk:Marasmusine

--Thomas1020 (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * These are interesting developments. I suspected that Noname555 and POLICE999999 were the same user but took no action as it was not causing a huge issue. Nothing is going to happen to this article unless it is taken to AfD, and I'm considering putting in a procedural nomination. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the portrait is coming from an Office of architecture. Their knowledge of architecture practice is high. But if it is the case, don t forget that they are using in France the same "wifi-livebox" for internet connection, with the same IP adress for everybody. What appear coming from the same person, could also come from severals contributors on the same location. Any way the contribution of Noname555 or Police9999999 doesnt seems illegal, insulting or counter productive. Or I don t understand myself the reason of Wikipedia. The debate is unfold with some passion, but nothing appears vulgar, neither in the portrait, neither in the speeches of this two pseudo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.11.190 (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Article on French Wikipedia restored
The article has been officially reintroduced and accepted in French wiki, after a debate on suppression (http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fran%C3%A7ois_Roche_%28architecte%29&diff=55461606&oldid=55202850). It is the same persons who tried as to erase this architect on WIKI-english (Thomas and Nakor) as a obsessive harassing or conflit of interrest --90.43.32.172 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First, please place new comments at the bottom of the page or section. Hardly looks like it is accepted to me given that this restored article is covered in tags highlighting issues with the article. Editors are within their rights to pursue deletion of articles which they believe violate policy on that project, it is not "harassment". CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone have a conflict of interest I wonder if it is the long time editors, pointing the obvious so it can be fixed, or someone that contributes on one unique article and spend their time in pointless attacks instead of taking care of the problems. So I will repeat one more time: I do not care about Mr Roche, I did not even know who he was before you did wreak havoc on fr.wikipedia, the only thing that is important here is to have an article within Wikipedia rules. Nakor (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Idiotic
The translation is idiotically bad and sounds as though it was made by a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.101.21 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

R&Sie(n) vs. François Roche
Stumbled across this article. As people say above, it is partly a CV of Roche, but mainly about his collaboration, R&Sie(n). I would suggest that R&Sie(n) is possibly notable, but Roche is not. The article is still very confusing and filled with clever jargon, which is not helpful. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion, but it may be worth an attempt to write someothing about R&Sie(n) first...

N.B. I can see no reliable evidence that Roche is an architect (a protected term in most countries). Sure, he may have graduated in architecture, but that is a different thing. His identity and label seems very much in dispute. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

R&Sie(n) vs. François Roche
are you a critic of architecture to know who is notable ? The architecture site and references you did in Wiki are extremely conservative and traditional...Why not!... everybody is free to like or unlike...an architect...But denying or disqualifying his importance is an intellectual hoax. F Roche is a main teacher (Columbia, Upenn, RMIT, etc etc) in architecture school since 15 years. He has been invited to present his work to 8 biennale of architecture as an architect, as the architect principal of several company, not only R&Sie(n) but new-territories and at his own name. So please keep your judgement for you, nothing seems to validate what you are asserting... expected the fact that it s coming from you... not enough to be relevant. Architecture is not only to realize the department store in front of your condo. It s thinking, writting, debating, constructing, teaching and... more... It seems that this FR correspond to the title. So stop the irony about graduate or not... He is an architect. No 'more no less', and 'less in bore' in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.123.252 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)